
Class _Ei--3_2^ 
Book.S£jt_ 



SPEECH 



OF 



HON. AYILLIAM R. SAPP, OF OHIO, 



.-«*^* 



BILL TO ORGANIZE TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENTS IN 



NEBRASKA AND KANSAS, 



OPPOSING THE REPEAL OF THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE. 



»■# 



HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, APRIL 28, 1854. 



WASHINGTON: 

PRINTED AT THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE OMICE. 

1854. 






EKeHAME 



NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. 



The House being in Committee of the Whole ' 
on the state of the Union — 

Mr. SAPP rose and said: 

Mr. Chairmak: When I reflect upon the mag- 
nitude of interests involved inihe Senate >'ebraska 
and Kansas bill, I do not wonder at the intense 
excitement its introduction and passage by the 
United States Senate has created throughout the 
leneth and oreadth of the land, it is, sir, in the 
discussion of the merits and demerits of this meas- 
ure that I propose to consume the hour allotted to 
me by the rules of this House. 

Sir, the reneal of the eiffhth section of the Mis- 
souri compromise of 1820", which reads as follows: 

" And le't further enacted. That in all ihat tprriiory ceded 

bv France lo i.'ie L'nited States onder the name of Louis^ 

iana. which lies north of 36' aO' norih latitude, not included 

«,i within the limit* of the Sute contemplated by this act, 

\ Uavery <^n4 intolunlaru sertitude, otnertcue than in tke mn- 

K ithment of crimes, ,chh-eof tke partus sAc!.' fc^re tfei du.y 

'i\ oOficirfed, skaU be, and hereby is, prohibited forever, 



^ is the great object which the friends of this bill de 
sire to attain. Mr. Chairman, by whom was this 
compromise passed ? Let the record speak, and it 
will lell you thai it was carried in il^ Senate oy a 
Tote of 34 veas to 10 nays, and in ibe House by 
134 yea3to'42 navs. In the Senate fourteen south- 
ern Senators voted for it, and but eight against a, 
and in the House there were 39 yeas, to 37 nays 
from the South, who recorded their votes on the 
enactmeat of the prohibition of slavery north of 
the Missouri comDromise line. And yet, sir, we 
are told that the South had no agency in the pas- 
age of thai measure. 
"Su-, at the time of its passage Mr. Monroe was 
President of the United States, who had m his 
Cabinet John auincy Adams, B. W. Crownmg- 
shield, John C. Calhoun, Wi.ham Wirt, and 
William H. Crawford, a galaxy of men of talent 
iufficient to know whether it was consututional, 
and of integrity thai would have forced them to 
declare their convictions of its unconsututionahty 
had thev deemed it so. The compromise received 
their sanction, which it could not have done were 
it unconsiituiional. And who, sir, were three 
of the Cabinet of Mr. Monroe? Three of the 
brightest intellects the South ever produced, wno, 
though the shadows of the grave have descended 
upon them, their principles still h« as guides 
for their c^runtrymen to the path of duty. 

But, Mr. Chairman, the exercise of the po^f^ 
by Con-'ress to legi-Iaie upon this subject did 
not besia ihere. In 17ST the old Congress, com- 
posed In a great part of the men who were then 
members of the Convention for the formation of 
our Constitution, passed an ordinance, originated 



by Mr. Jefferson, to exclude alarery northwest of 
the Ohio river. 

This restriction was applied to what was then 
slave territory. 

In 1803 we purchased Louisiana of 1- ranee, 
which was slave territory, and Congress exer- 
cised its power then over the subject, by prohib- 
iting the introduction of slaves from beyond the 
United States, or from any of the States into said 
territory, other than by their bona Jidt owners. 
Thus ii will be seen that the very power which 
this bill denies the existence of was exercised by 
some of the framers of our Constituuon, wno 
were supposed to know the intent and meaning of 
the instrument of their own creation. It will also 
be seen that it received the sanction of Mr. Jeffer- 
son, first bv his origination of the ordinance of 
1787, and secondlv, bv his approval of the bill 
restricting the importauon of slares mto Louisiana 

Territory. > i. -j 

Mr. Chairman, the eentlemen on the other ^e 
of the House are very fond of quoting Mr. Jeffer- 
son as hi^h authority, whenever his views may 
favor their notions on any particular subject of 
moment. They will not, therefore, dispute their 
own authority, as I have shown that Mr. Jeffer- 
son was clear'lv in favor of the same principles that 
are the essence of the Missouri compromise, bir, 
lei me, in this connection, say that I regard the 
auihorl-.v of Thomas Jefferson, the author of the 
Declarat'ion of Independence, and the ordmance 
of 17c7, as also the action of the ^rly fathers of 
. the Republic, who held seats both in the oid Con- 
gress and the Constitutional Convenuon, as far 
luperior to that of any of the big or UtUe giants of 
the present day. , »» • 

Mr Chairman, I contend that the Missoun 
compromise, which this bill proposes to repeal, 
was never designed to be a repealable law. It was 
enacted as a perpetual statute, to be beyond the 
possibilitv of repeal. It was a finality which waa 
construa'ed to calm the excitement on the slavery 
question which then existed, and to drive out of 
tr.e Halls of Congress the ajitation which, sia.king 
f.irth with fearful aspect, threatened to destroy the 
Union, and, simultaneous with its destrucuon, to 
blast the hopes of the American people. 

Such, Mr. Chairman, is the cnaracter of the 
measure which this bill desires to make inopera- 
tive And yet, Mr. Chairman, this pacific meas- 
ure, this sacred compact, is to be repealed by the 
Senate Nebraska and Kansas bill, which, in 
solemn forms of legislauon, says: 

"Thai the Constiiotioa. ar.d a!! law? of the United St«« 
which Jrenoi loo.Hy inapplicable. ^^^' ^J^ ^ .^ 
Srd^ and eSect wiOun Uie aud TemtOfy of Nebr*:^ •» 



•Isewh(!re within the United Statns; except the eifrhth sec- 
tion of the fict preparatory to the admission of Missouri 
into the Union, ap(iroved Marcli 6, 1820, which was super- 
seded hy ilie principles of the legislation of l«oO,coiiinionly 
called the compromise measures, and i8 hereby declared 
inoperative." 

" It heing the true intent and m(!aning ef this act not to 
legislate slavery into any Territory or State, nor to exclude 
it therefrom, hut to h'ave the people thereof perfectly free 
lo form and regulate their domestic institutions in their 
own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United 
States." 

'' Prodded, That nothing herein contained shall be con- 
Btrued to revive or putin force any law or regulation which 
may have existed prior to the act of the 6th of March, 1820, 
either protecting, establishing, prohibiting, or abolishing 
sJavery." 

Mr. Chairman, what are the reasons advanced 
for the repeal of the Mi.s.souri compromise.' First, 
as asserted by the bill itself, and reiterated over 
and over asrain in this House, and in the other 
end of the Capitol, " because it was superseded hy 
the legislation of 1850." What effect has the legis- 
lation of 1850 upon the Nebraska and Kansas 
Territory.' That legislation was intended to apply 
to domain entirely distinct from that affected by 
this bill, acquired under a different treaty, having I 
BO affinity whatever with it. It was never said i 
in 1850 that it was to do anything more; and to 
torture it into a different cotistruction now is an j 
experiment too dangerous to contemplate, too 
absurd to respect. I defy the friends of this 
measure to point me to a single period during the 
construction of the legislation of 1850, when any 
man, either upon the floor of this House, or the 
other, upon the hustings, in the public journals, or 
any where in this country, asserted that that legisla- 
tion was to affect the Missouri compromise. It was 
never asserted. Was it the intention of its friends 
to accomplish it.' If it was, under the cloak of 
silence they attempted to perpetrate a cheat upon 
the country, which, if it had been discovered, 
would have been nailed to the counter as false 
coin, and those measures never would have been 
enacted. 

_ And now, Mr. Chairman, as to the constitu- 
tionality of the Missouri compromise, the action 
of tke fathers of the Republic will settle that 
point. The action of Mr. Jefferson, originating 
the ordinance of 1787, and of the meml^ers of the 
eld Congress and Constitutional Convention in 
passing it, and of Congress in 1803, which re- 
stricted the importation of slaves into Louisiana 
Territory, shows clearly thatjf hose sages, to whom 
we are indebted for all the privileges we now enjoy, 
clearly recognized the principle embraced in the 
Missouri compromise. And to come down to a 
later day: the action of Congress in passing the 
Texas resolutions which prohibited slavery north 
of the Missouri compromise line, and in passing 
the Oregon bill which contained a like prohibition, 
proves beyond the peradventure of a doubt, that 
the principle of the Missouri compromise was 
recognized as constitutional and settled. 

I have said, Mr. Chairman, that the Missouri 
compromise is a compact, to form which a con- 
sideration was involved. The property affected 
by the compact was 'the whole of the Louisiana 
Territory. The North yielded to the South the 
right to hold slaves in the State of Missouri, and 
in that portion of the territory lying south of 36° 
30'; the South conceded that that part north of 
36° 30' should forever be free. The motive for i 
these concessions was the preservation of the I 
Union. That was the object to be obtained. It li 
was accomplished. You cannot, therefore, dissolve I! 



this compact without the consent of all the parties 
to it. The South has already reaped her share of 
this bargain; and, let me ask, is it jiisl for her to 
insist upon the North yielding up without the en- 
joyment of the consideration which induced her to 
become a party to it.' 

Mr. Chairman, it has been well said that one 
fact is worth a thou.-:and theorie.*; and if we look 
back to the Congressional Globe of March 1,1845, 
we will find that after Mr Milton Brown offered 
his Texas resolutions, he accepted an amendment 
proposed by Mr. Douglas, of Illinois, which says: 

" And in such States as shall be formed out of said Terri- 
tory, north of said Missouri compromise line, slavery or in- 
voluntary servitude, except for crime, shall be proliibited."' 

Again, on page eighty-five, of the same Globe, 
will be found the following: 

" Tiie re.<!olutions of Mr. Docglas are in the following 
words : 
'Joint Resolutions for the reannexation of Texas to the 

United States, in conforiiiily with the treaty of 1803, for 

the purchase of Louisiana. 

' Whereas, i,-c. * * * * * * 

'8th. Jind beit ftiither res'ilved, That nothing herein con- 
tained shall be construed to affect or in any way interfere 
with the eighth section of the act, approved the sixth of 
March, 1820, admittitis the Smie of Missouri into the Union, 
and commonly called the Missouri compromise, that act 
having been passed and approved prior to the ratification of 
the treaty commonly called tlie Texas treaty, by which 
Texas was ceded to Spain.' " 

It will thus be seen, Mr. Chairman, that, in 
1845, a member of this House, by the name of 
Stephen A. Douglas, from the State of Illinois, 
offered two amendments to the Texas bill — one 
prohibiting slavery north of the Missouri com- 
promise line, and the other expressly prohibiting 
the construction of that measure into an interfer- 
ence with the Missouri compromise. And yet 
this l)ill, which I am now discussing, for v.-hich he 
stood as sponsor, declares this same compromise ' 
inoperative, because it is superseded by the legis- 
lation of 1850, and because it is, in his opinion, 
unconstitutional. If unconstitutional in 1854, why 
was it not unconstitutional in 1845.' What new 
light is it that has been hidden under a bushel, 
that gleams at once, as it were, on his intellectual 
vision, and opens his eyes to the idea that this 
measure, which he deemed so absolutely necessary 
in 1845 to be applied to the Texas resolutions, is 
now unconstitutional.' 

And now, Mr. Chairman, let me give the views 
of a distinguished southern gentleman, who is 
now the Presiding Officer of the other branch of 
the National Legislature, [Mr. Atchisont, of Mis- 
souri,] whose opinions have great weight in the 
South, who, at the last session of Congress, in 
speaking on the Nebraska bill then under consid- 
eration, said: 

" I have always been of opinion that the first great error 
committed in the political history of this country was the 
ordinance of 1787, rendering the Northwest Territory free 
territory. The next great error was the Missouri compro- 
mise. But they are both irremediable. Tliire is no remedy 
for them. We must submit to them. I am prepared to do 
it. It is evident that the Missouri comiinimise cannot be 
repealed. So far as that question is concerned, we might 
as well .-igree to the admission of this Territory now as next 
year, or five or ten years hence. — " CoitgressUmal Globe, 
'2d Sess. 3id. Cong. vol. 26, page 1113. 

You perceive, Mr. Chairman, that the Missouri 
compromise was then, at that late day, placed 
beyond the possibility of repeal, and yet not a 
single advocate of this new-fledged doctrine had 
the boldness, if be entertained the notion, lo con- 
trovert this opinion of the distinguished President 
pro tempore of the Senate at the time.f 



And, Mr. Chairman, we find that ex-President 
Polk approved of the Missouri compromise line, 
and evinced his approval, not only by sisning the 
Oregon bill, but, in giving his reasons for doing so. 
Here is what he says: 

"Had ttic bill embraced territories soiitb of that com- 
nroniiffi, the (iiie-^tii)n presented forriiy consideration would 
have been ola far ditferent character, and my action upon 
it must have corresponded witli my convictions.-' 

Mr. Chairman, if time permitted, and I deemed 
it necessary, [ might produce innumerable author- 
ities of great men, of the past and present day, 
repudiating the unconstitutionality of the Missouri 
compromise; but, sir, the remainder of my hour 
will not permit it, nor have 1 the disposition to 
travel over an already well reaped field, to prove 
what has already been sufficiently done— the con- 
stitutionality of the Missouri compromise. 

Mr. Chairman, the fine sand which is to be 
thrown into the eyes of the people to blind them to 
the consideration of the repeal of the Missouri i 
compromise, or at least to break the fall which a i 
suggestion of repeal would have upon them, is the | 
idea'advanced by the supporters of this mea.sure, \\ 
that they are in favor of it because it asserts the ji 
great princit)le of nonintervention, or popular i| 
sovereignty. Sir, I deny this iri tolo. Examine 
it section by section, and you will find it replete 
with intervention 

Mr. Chairman, 1 say that this bill is replete 
with intervention. I will not go into the minute 
details of the intervention it contains, becau.se, if 
I were to exhihit every single instance of inter- 
vention it contains, I .could string them out in 
length almost as long as the bill it.self. It takes 
away from tlie people the election of Governor, 
and makes him appointabl? by the President, and 
gives him the power to veto the wishes of the 
people speaking through their representatives in 
the Territorial Legislature. Thus, if the people 
desired to prohil)it slavery in the Territories, the 
Governor could veto their wishes. It gives the 
appointment of judges to the President, and not 
to the people; the judges who, liaving the con- 
struction of the laws, possess equally as much, if 
not more, power than the Governor to negative 
the legislation of the people. These two branches 
of theGovernmeni, the Executiveand the judicial, 
entirely irresponsible to the people of the Terri- 
tories, and amenalile only to the Pre.sident of the 
United States, from whom they derive their ap- 
pointment, could eifectually knock any idea of the 
sovereignty of the people in the Territories in the 
head. And what guaranty have we that they 
will not .' On the contrary, iookins: at the shame- 
less interference of the Executiveand his Admin- 
istration in the last elections in New York and 
Massachusetts, we have every reason to believe 
that on account of their having the government 
of these Territories effectually under their control, 
they will more shamelessly interfere than they 
did in Massachusetts and New York to subserve 
their slavery notions, which they have clearly 
evinced by their mainienance of this bill, and the 
idea of the unconstitutionality of the Missouri 
compromise. 

Mr. Chairman, I will not lend my sanction to 
the passage of any measure pretending to be based 
upon the doctrine of popular sovereignty, which 
has but a semblance of that essence in it — a suf- 
ficiency of it to delude men who may be carried 
off by mere names, and not reason, to its support. 
Sir, this bill is not a non-intervention measure. 



It is preposterous and absurd — it is an imputation' 
upon the judgment of the people to attempt to 
delude them with that idea. It is a measure got 
up expressly to sub.serve the purposes of slavery 
by the repeal of the Missouri coinprdmise. Pass 
itj and you leave thntcompromise on your statute- 
books as an evidence of the insincerity ot com- 
pacts. Pass it, and you will prevent tlie people 
of the North from emigrating there, because they 
naturally have an aversion to be thrown into a 
degrading competition with slave labor. They- 
will go to other Territories, where they can pursue 
their avocation, undesecrated by being obliged to 
work with slaves, and where they can associate 
with freemen, who look upon labor as respectable 
and honorable. 

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylva- 
nia [Mr. Wright] says that " the power of Con- 
gress to legislate upon the subject of slavery in 
the Territories is imbecile. It is barren." That 
is the opinion of a northern supporter of this 
measure, upon which he places liis support of it. 
Now, Mr. Chairman, what is the opinion ofthe 
South upon this doctrine? The Federal Union, 
an influential Democratic journal of the South, 
published at the seat of government of Georgia, 
the organ of the Democratic party of that State, 
and the mouth-piece of the distinguished Execu- 
tive of Georgia, in its issue of April 18, says: 

"' Squatter Sovereignty.'— We see a disposition in 
some quarters of the DernocraUc party to discuss the ques- 
tion of squatter sovereignly as anphed to the Nebraska bill. 
We see no use in raisins the issue ai this lime. It can do 
no good, while it may occasion n)iich evil to the Democratic 
party. Some profess in support the Nebraska bill because 
the doctrine of squatter sovereignty is embodied in it; 
others support it because the doctrine is not admitted in the 
bill, ff llie bill is a good one and suits all parlies, why 
should wequnrrel about a provi.sion which is both admilted 
and denied .' Why peril the bill by an unnecessary dispute 
as to some sufposieil admission or denial of a doctrine ? We 
(ieprecale uU discussion at present us useless and provocative 
of controvej fiies that can only end in hurl As for ourselves, 
we are prepared, whenever the issue arises, to maintain 
our position, as we have always heretofore ; that is, (/g«ins« 
the squatter sovereigviv doctrine, giving to our Democratic 
brethren who may diifer with us. the right to whatever 
opinion lliey prefer on the subject, and the use of our col- 
umns for expressing ilie same." 

Mr. Calhoun said, in his speech in 1850, in the 
Senate of the United States: 

" In claiming the right for the inhabitants, instead of 
ConereKS, to legisl.ate for the Territories, the E.xecntive pro- 
viso assumes that the govereignty over the Teiritories is 
vested in the former: or, to express it in language used in a 
resolution offered by one of the Senators from Texas, [Gen- 
eral Houston,] have ' the same inherent right of sell gov- 
ernment as the people in the Stales.' Tlie assumption is 
utterly unfounded, unconstitutional, without example, arid 
contrary to the entire -practice of the Government, from its 
commencement to the jnesent time." 

Mr. Westcott, of Florida, said, in a speech in 
the Senate: 

" The people of a Territory, by which I mean those rec- 
ognized as citizens of the United States, residing in such 
Territory, cannot exercise any of the sovereign powers 
that pertain to a sovereign and independ nt Slate, i .xcept 
sui h as are absolutely necessary to the preservation ot the 
peace and good order of society." " Until they form and 
organize their sovereign State government, their rights ot 
sovereignly are dormant and in abeyance." " Yes, sir, 
this thing you create and call a territorial government, is a 
mere temporary, fugacious, local police instlliilioli— a lim- 
ited, dependent muiiicip.al corporanon, similar to those 
exi.stmg in counIie>, cities, parishes, town?, or boroughs, 
incorporated by our Stale Legislatures. " " The institution 
of domestic servitude is a political institution ; it is not a 
mere municipal regulation." 

And yet, Mr. Chairman, we find distinguished 
gentleme'i from theSouth supporting this meisure. 
I find my friend from South Carolina, [Mr. Keitt,] 



6 



the particular champion of Mr. Calhoun, who i 
says of hitn: . 

"Sir, lliR history of Mr. C.'illioim, fur forty years, is i 
largely iiiHiititii'il wiili tli<; lii-lory ofiliK Union. .Splendid, j 
too, as was tiis inlellfcl, fjlorious as were his detuls, his j 
moral purity yi;t hiTuitified his character like the bow set in 
the clouds. No indireiMion ever ni;irlti'd his course. Wiri 
or fail, he ever marched to his object directly. Others 
might win tlieir way to the pi(niacle of power by tortuous 
twisliiigs, as the serpent climbs upwards by sinuous folds, ' 
yet leaving behind, through bush and bramble, a track of 
slime to mark his course. He stooped down upon the sum j 
mit as stoops the eagle from his lolly companionship with ; 
tlie Kun. Never did criminal ambition seduce liim from , 
the patriot's duty." ; 

Yes, Mr. Chairman, my friend, who speaks 
thus of Mr. Calhoun, is found suppotting the bill, 
which its northern friend.s .say contains the very 
principle, Ihe assnmpti"n of lohich Mr. Calhoun de- 
clares to be ulterlij unfounded, unc' institutional, with- 
out example, and contrary to the entire practice cf the 
Government from its commencement to the present ; 
time. I 

The supporters of this measure come forward j 
here; some support it for this reason, others fori 
another reason, and so on; they all see a different | 
aspect in the organization of the bill upon which [ 
they base their supportof It. Now, Mr. Chairman, 
with all this conflict of opinion bet A'een the friends 
of the measure, I must confess that there is gooil ! 
reason to suspect something is rotten in Denmark, i 

But, Mr. Chairman, indenendent of tlie viola- 1 
tion of ihe Missouri compromise, I have other! 
and very strong oljections to the passage of thisi 
bill. It [irovides " that no officer, seaman, marine, 
or any other person in the Army or Navy of the i 
United States, shall vote in said Territory." j 

So far as the Navy is concerned, it is super-' 
fluons; because it is not to be presumed that any ] 
of the members of that branch of the public ser- 
vice would loMte in a place isolated from the sea- 
port towns of the Republic. But when we come 
to the Army, the protection of our white popu- 1 
lation agnint^t the encroachments of the Indians 
will make it necessary lo have a large force there. 
When soldiers are ordered to a distant locality, 
like Nebraska and Kansas, it is not to stop for a 
day, or a week, or a month, or a year, but for a 
long time — perhaps until the expiration of their 
term of enlistment. Responsible as they would 
be to the municipal regulations of the Territory, 
it would not be proper to deprive them of a parti- 
cipation in the election of the Legislatures who are 
to make those regulations. Will you tell me, Mr. 
Chairman, with what propriety this Congress can 
pass this bill, excluding those men who, perhaps,! 
have borne the brunt of battle, and show iheir dis- j 
position to do so again by goin^ to those Terri - ! 
tories.' — I say, with what propriety can you ex-j 
elude those men from participating in the election | 
of the Legislatures to frame the laws to which 
they are to be held amenal)le.' 

But, Mr. Chairman, I oliject to this bill also, 
because it prevents those foreigners, residents of 
the Territory, who have not had time to become 
citizens of the United States, from votin?. Who 
are those men who are prevented from voting by 
this bill .' Men who, oppressed by the tyranny of 
their governments in the Old World, attracted by 
the beacon-light which hangs from the mast head 
of our Republic as their guide to a home where 
freedom can be breathed as pure as the air of 
heaven; and who, coming here, desire not to spend 
a lazy life in the cities, but emigrate to the mighty 
West to hew down the forest, spread civilization, 



and substitute, in place of wild blanks of unculti- 
vated land and almost impenetrable woods, beau- 
tiful farms, thriving villages, hand.some towns, 
and populous cities. They do this because they 
feel that they have an interest in the firo.sperity of 
the country. This, Mr. Chairman, is the char- 
acter of the people who are excluded by this bill 
from exercising the highest esteemed privilege of 
a freeman — the right of suffrage — until they have 
spent five years in toil. 

When, Mr. Chairman, I look at the foreign 
population of our country — when 1 reflect upon 
the gallant military services of .Montgomery, 
Steuben, Lafayette, De Kalu, Pulaski, and other 
illustrious men, who took a prooiiiient part in 
the revolutionary struggle of the Colonies for lib- 
erty — when 1 look at the credit foreii^ners have 
done to whatever position s have been held by them 
in America — and when I reflect that all the battle- 
fields of America have been enriched by their blood, 
and its history illustrated by the tales of their 
heroic deeds of valor — 1 cannot see how any gen- 
tleman on this floor can vote for this bill, perpe- 
trating, as it does, this great wrong. 

Mr. Chairman, 1 have thus somewhat discon- 
nectedly given some of my principal olijections to 
this bill; and 1 desire now to turn my attention 
to another branch of the su'iject, and to inquire 
who is it that has asked for the enaciment of this 
measure.' Has the South asked lor it.' Has the 
North asked for it.' Was it brought forth to effect 
any good purpose, or was it originated as a kind 
of easy vehicle to ride into the Presidential chair 
upon.' TheNonh never asked for it; onthecon- 
trary, it is opposed to it. Toe South has never 
asked for it; but at the same time I blame the 
South for echoing a too ready response to its spirit, 
instead of coming out as a uniiand sianding upon 
the same platform as some of her representatives 
have done, and throw back with indignity this 
attempt to induce her to sacrifice her honor, her 
chivalry, her well-earned historical reputation, by 
this attempted violation of the Missouri compro- 
mise. 

Sir, it is the creature of a desire on the part of 
certain men to secure ulterior obje'-ts, to effect 
which, they create this trick to blind the people 
to a sense of their real purposes. It is a direct 
violation of the pled<:es which the Democratic 
party made to the country by its platform adopted 
at the last national convention of that party, held 
in Baltimore in 1852, which reads as follows: 

" V. Rejoined, That Ihe Demncralic pariv will resist all 
attempts at renewing, in Congress or out ol ii, the agitation 
of the slavery question, under whatever shape or color tti« 
alic'inpt may be made." 

Mr. Chairman, it is in direct violation of the 
pledge given by the Whig party in its late national 
platform, which solemnly says: 

"VI I r. The series of acts of Ihe Thiru-First Congress, 
commonly known as the compnnnise ailjn-iment, (ihe act 
for Ihe recovery of fmiilives (roni l.itior included,) are re- 
ceived and ac-(]nie.sced in by tiie VViiigs ol ihe United States 
as a final seuienieni, in principle and snlislance, of the sub- 
jects to which they relate ; and so far a- these acts are con- 
cerned, we will maintain them, and nisist on their strict en- 
forcenienl, niilil time and experience shall demonsirate the 
necessity of further legislali'in to gn inl against llie evasion 
of Ihe laws on the one hand, and tin- .ihns.- oflht-ir present 
etficifi.cvlo .arry outthe requirenienls of the ('ori>illntion ; 
and we deprecate all further agil.uion of ihe (iiicsiions thus 
settled, as ilangerous 10 our peace, ajid will di-coniilenance 
all efl'orts tocontinne or renew such a','itiiiion, whenever, 
wheri-ver, or however made ; and will inainmin this settle- 
ment asesseniial to the nalioimlity of the Whig party and 
tlie integrity of tlie Union." 



It is a most unprincipled violation of the reso- 
lutions of this House passed in 1852, on motion 
by Mr. Joseph W. Jackson, of Georg^ia, which 
distinctly stated that " I'Fe recognize the binding 
efficacy of the compromises of Hie ConstihUion," 
meaning unequivocally the Missouri compromise 
as one of the compromises of the Constitution. 
In fact, sir, it is a most palpable violation of the 
most solemn assurances made to this country by 
the supporters of this measure that this agitation 
should cease. 

And now, Mr. Chfiirman, as this bill pretends 
to be a great people's bill, embracing popular sov- 
ereignty in its purest essence, it ia well enough 
that"the views of the people of Nebraska should 
be known. Indeed, sir, it is peculiarly appropri- 
ate that they should be, as that people are to be 
the receivers of the effects of this bill in the event 
of its.pas.sage. In a Nebraska convention, held 
at St. Joseph 's, they passed resolutions, which are 
reported as follows: 

''Resolved, That we consider the agitation of the slavery 
question, in connection with the organization of Nebraslia 
Territory, dangerous to the peace of the country, fatal to 
the best intere.-ts of Nebraska itself, and even threatening 
the harmony, if not tlie perpetuity, of tlie vi'liole Union. 

" Resolved, That we are utterly <ipposed to any reagita- 
tionnf that ' vexed question,' now happily at rest ; and we 
will resist all attempts at renewing, in Congress or out of 
it, the agitation of tlie slavery question, under whatever 
shape or color the question may be made." 

Mr. Chairnnan, let me call the attention of the 
committee generally, and the Representatives from 
Missouri particularly, to the following resolutions 
of the Legislature of Missouri, passed in 1847: 
" Joint resoltilion in relation to the Missouri compromi.se 
act of lf-20. 

" Resolved by the General Assembly of the State of Mis- 
souri, as follows : 

"Sec. 1. Tliat the peace, permanency, and welfare of our 
national Union depend upon a strict adherence to the letter 
and spirit of the eighth section of the act ofCongress of the 
United States, eiititlidd 'An act to authorize the people of 
the Missouri Territory to form a constitution and State 
government, and for the admission of such State into the 
Union on an equal footing with the original States, and to 
prohibit slavery in certain Territories,' approved March 6, 

1820; 

" Sec. 2. ThatourSenatorsin the Congress ofthe United 
States are hereby instructed, and our Representatives re- 
quested, to vote in accordance with the provisions and the 
spirit ofthe said eighth section ofthe said act, in all ques- 
tions which may come before them in relation to the organ- 
ization of new Territories or States, out of the territory now 
belonging to the United States, or which may hereafter be 
acquired, either by purchase, by treaty, or conquest. 

" Sec. 3. That a copy of these resolutions shall be for- 
warded, by the Secretary of Slate, to each of our Senators 
and Representatives in Congress of the United States." 

Mr. Chairman, what did the Executive promise 
the people of the United Spates? In his last an- 
nual message he said: 

"A successful w.ir had just terminated. Peace brought 
with it a vast augmentation of territory. Disturbing ques- 
tions arose, bearing upon the domestic institutions of one 
portion ofthe Confederacy, and involving the constitutional 
rights of the States. But, notwithstanding ditferences of 
opinion and sentiment, which then existed in relation to 
details and specific provisions, the acquiescence of dis- 
tinguished citizens, whose devotion to the Union can never 
be doubted, lias given renewed vigor to our institutions, and 
restored a sense of repose and securitv to the public mind 
throughout the Confederacy. That this repose is to suffer 
no shock during my official term, if I have power to avert 
it, those who placed me here may be assured." 

It will be seen by this message that he distinctly 
pledged himself that •' this repose shall suffer no 
shock." Yet, no sooner is that imessage delivered 
to Congress, than a bomb-shell is thrown into its 
halls to agitate the nation, which not only receives 
encouragement from his own mouth, but is trum- 



peted forth to the country in his organ, the 
Washington Union, as a peculiar favorite of Gen- 
eral Pierce. 

Hear the Union: 

" It need not now be repeated that President Pierce was 
an early, and that he has been an ardent and constant 
advocate of the Nebraska bill. It has beco.me a prom- 
inent MEASURE of his ADMINISTRATION. If it 1)6 de- 
feated in the House, it will, it must be admitted, he a defeat 
of the Administration. The Whigs of Uie North and the 
1 Abolitionists have coalesced in opposition to the .Admin- 
> isiraiion, upon the ground of its support of the measun!. 
jTHE IS.-5UE IS THUS MADE— THE TEST IS THUS 
APPLIED." 

I Mr. Chairman, it has been again and again 
said upon this floor that the northern people are 
ithe aggressors. The honorable gentleman from 
; Kentucky, [Mr. Preston,] not now in his seat, 
[ said in his late speech here upon this bill: 
I "An impartial judgment, based upon the history of the 
Territories, must convince us that the Norili has been, in 
\ point of tact, guilty of the very aggression of which she 
! accuses the South." 

j Was the concession which the North made in 
j 1820, in consentmg to the enactment of the Mis- 
souri compromise line, aggression .' If, sir, that was 
'aggression, then I admit the force of the charges 
jof the honorable gentleman from Kentucky. 
! Was the concession which she made in 1836, 
I granting to theStuteof Missouri iheright to extend 
her western boundary over a tract of land contain- 
1 ingabout three thousand five hundred square miles, 
'situated north ofthe compromise line, which has 
since been divided into six counties, and which, 
[ contrary to the compact which formed the basis 
j of the Missouri compromise line, is used for the 
I purposes of slavery, I say, was that concession 
[ofthe North, submitting to three thousand five 
j hundred square miles of free territory being 
1 reduced to slavery, what is called here aggression ? 
Was the compromise measures of 1850, among 
which was a bill placing at the disposal of the 
slaveholder the means of catching his runaways, 
what is termed aggression by the gentleman from 
Kentucky.' Sir, the North has never aggressed 
upon the South. Standing upon the broad platform 
of the Constitution and the Union, she has never 
committed aggressions upon her sisters. Pursuing 
the discussion of the subject of slavery no further 
than it came within the purview of the General 
Government, she has never made war upon the 
constitutional rights of the South. Sir, let the 
South stand by her obligations. Let her repu- 
diate all offers tending to induce her to break 
them. Let her condemn all this agitation of a 
question as applicable to a locality, relative to 
which it has long since been settled, by ceasing 
to agitate it herself, through her Representatives 
here, and then she will no longer imagine that the 
i North is aggressing upon her rights. It is only on 
' account of her own love for excitement, where her 
crimination begets recrimination, that she loses 
sight of the cause of the agitation, and lays at the 
door of aggression the very mischief which she 
performed a prominent part in creating. 

The North had the power to defeat all the meas- 
ures which I have mentioned, and which were so 
conducive to the interests ofthe South; yet, mag- 
nanimously avoiding the use of her power, which 
her great niamerical strength in the Union gives her, 
she has permitted all these measures, depriving her, 
1 of many things she could have claimed, to pass. 
]! Mr. Chairman, pray what is the size of this 
I territory, the government for which is attempted 
!i to be legislated, rough-shod, through this House? 



<f.,.^ 



It is a territory twelve timea as large as the State 
of New York, containiiig land for agricuUural 
purposes equal to any in the world, and affording 
inducements to settlers which will soon cause it to 
be populated. This is something worth contend- 
ingftr. Tell me not that slavery will nutgo there; 
that it is excluded by the laws of nature. This, 
is ail nonsense. Pass this bill, and you will see 
whether it will. 

Mr. Chairman, it has been said that the home- 
stead bill would ca'iise Nebraska to be populated 
with an anti slavery people, which would preclude 
the possibility of slavery going there. Sir, we 
should not halloo before we get out of J,he woods. 
The homestead l)ill has tiot passed the Senate as 
yet, and, unless some great popular expression, is 
made to bring that body to a sense of the anxiety 
of the people for its passage, I am afraid it will 
not become a law this Congress. But, sir, even if 
it does, it cannot affect Nebraska and Kansas. 
Owing to the existence of Indian titles — which 
will prevent the land being surveyed and placed 
p market until they are extinguished — the people 
there could derive no benefits from the homestead 
policy. The hope of using that measure as a 
preventive of the existence of slavery is without 
foundation. 

There is nothing, sir, magical about the parallel 
of 36° 30' north latitude to preyent slavery exist- 
ing north of it. All Missouri, a large portion of 
Kentucky, Virginia, and Maryland, lies north of 
it, and yet slavery is used to advantage in those 
States. What then would prevent it from existing 
in Nebraska and Kansas .' Is there any difference 
between those Territories and the States I have 
mentioned, that would cause it to exist in one and 
not in the other? I repeat it, sir, it is idle to say 
that slavery is restricted by the laws of nature. It 
will go, sir, wherever you permit it. ' is not 
confined to climate, but to conscience. Thi slave 
power rests occasionally, but never sleeps. 

Mr. Chairman, the fact that the Senate has 
passed this bill gives it no favnr in my eyes. 
That body has always been pro-slavery. Wneii- 
ever there has i)een a contest between freedom and 
slavery, the Senate has taken the side of slavery. 
When the House refused to admit Missouri with 
her slave constitution, the Senate went in, heart 
and soul, for it, and at last got the House into the 
passage of the Missouri compromise, which was 
a great concession on the part of the North. 

I can only account for this character of the Sen-, 
ate from the fact of Senators deriving their exist- 
ence from the Legislature, whilst the Representa- 
tives come fresh from the people. It is well that 
the Representatives are here; they represent the 
people; they are instruments of popular represent- 
ation, without which the people are essentially 
dead, or only live to servitude. 

Mr. Chairman, I submit that we of the House 
of Representatives cannot, with any propriety, 
act upon this measure at this time. We are the 
reflectors of the people's will in the National Le- 
gislature. Previous to our elections, it was never 
hinted that this measure would be brought forth 
here. It was never dreamed that this hydra- 
headed monster would pollute the Halls of Con- 
gress with its venomous presence. We were 
elected upon no such issue; and, so far as we 
understand, there is a general uprising of the 
people of the North on this subject. But I am 
willing that the thing should be fairly tested before 
the people, and to abide by their decision. Let it 



rest until alter the coming elections, at least; but 
to act more properly, let it rest until the nex^ Con- 
gress, by which tune the people — by the next 
election of their Represenlative.s — will more fully 
indicate their sentiment upon the bill. 

Mr. Chairman, let me suggest to the friends of 
this bill that it does not speak much for the merits 
of their measure to hear them constantly pro- 
claiming that this is a battle of the Abolitionists 
against the principles of this bill. Sir, this looks 
to me as if it was an attempt to ad viiice the inter- 
ests of this bill by enlisting in its behalf any pre- 
judice that may exist in this Hou.se against the 
term Abolitionist. Who, sir, are the opponents 
of this measure.' Sir, nearly the entire people of 
the North oppose it. And when I come to the 
South, I am glad to see those Repre.sentatives on 
this floor from that section who oppose this meas- 
ure, and thereby maintain pliglited faith. Sir, 
their names will ever be revered; and when the 
history of the present day is written, inscribed 
upon its contents in letters of living light will be 
found the names of those gentlemen, as i.atriots 
and friends of the Union, who, coming forward 
and despising any advantage that their section 
might obtain by this measure, repudiate the re- 
peal of the Missouri compromise as a gross vio- 
lation of a sacred agreement. 

Sir, this bill is opposed by great compromise 
men of 1850, by men who have the strictest re- 
gard for the constitutional rights of the South, 
who looked upon the platforms of the two great 
(>arties of the country, the rfsolutions of this 
House, and other actions, as a binding recognition 
of the Missouri compromise, which they believed 
(though unjust to the North at the time) should 
be adhered io,as the Souih had received her share 
of the bargain, and the North had not. Such, Mr. 
Chairman, is the character of the opposition to 
this measure; and I think it would be at least 
di.-creet for its friends not to attempt to delude the 
country with the idea that it meets but the antag- 
onism of a single party, and that the Abolition 
party of the North. Sir, the opposition is con- 
fi.ied to no section; here, there, every where, from 
the ice-bound regions of the North to the Gulf of 
Mexico, and from the rocky Atlantic oast to the 
Pacific ocean, may be heard murmurings as loud, 
in the language of a di.stinsruished ex-Senator, as 
the mighty cataract that thunders upon the west- 
ern borders of the Empire Stale, proclaiming the 
iniquity of the repeal of the Mis.-^ouri compro- 
mise. 

Pass this bill, Mr. Chairman, and no sooner is 
it done than the excitement which now exists in 
this country will be elevated to iis highest pitch, 
and where peace and tranquillity existed previous 
to the introduction of this measure, turbulence 
and discontent will pervade the land. It is by the 
excitement created by the enactment of a measure 
of this kind, that you do more to nnpairthe integ- 
rity of the Union than by a direct blow at its sta- 
bility. A periodical existence of an excitement 
like this may seem to do it no harm; but I warn 
this House and the country that every measure 
of this kind gradually impairs its strength. Like 
the water dripping on the stone, it may seem to 
do it no hurt, but eventually it will make its im- 
pression; decay will take the place of strength, 
and the proud Union erected by our fathers as 
a monument of the capability of man for self- 
government will 0»"» ^"^^ with its fall leave to 
another generation the solution of that problem. 



I 



